Re: Ovine Park
How about?
Soilma Trousers: International Man of Mystery.
"Sheep......With frikkin' lasers beams !!!! "
Posts by Methusalah
20 publicly visible posts • joined 1 May 2009
Rancher faces prison for trying to breed absolute unit of a sheep
Missing Titan sub likely destroyed in implosion, no survivors
Monday 26th June 2023 06:43 GMT
Re: Hydrostatic Head
If you are wrong, It's not by much
I did a similar calculation myself, but using imperial units and slightly different assumptions.
It went like this....
Assumption 1. The pressure hull is a cylinder with hemispherical endcaps. Overall length is 16 feet with a diameter of 6 feet.
Assumption 2. For the purposes of the calculation the the hemisperical endcaps were considered to be identical and so consistuted a sphere with a diameter of 6 feet.
Calculation 1
Surface area of the sphere is therefore. 4*3.14*3*3 giving 113.04 sq feet. Multiply by 144 to convert to sq inches gives 16,277.76 sq inches. Multiply by 2.5 ( ambient pressure in psi for the depth) gives a total pressure over the surface of 40,694.4 tons
Calculation 2
The overal length of the hull is 16 feet but the 2 hemispherical endsections each have a radius of 3 feet, therefore the centre section of the hull has a length of 10 feet.
The circumference of a circle of diameter 6 is 6*3.14 giving a length of 18.84 feet Therefore the surface area of the centre section is 18.84*10, so equals 188.4 sq feet
Multiply by 144 (convert to sq inches) gives 27,129.6 sq inches. Multiply by 2.5 (ambient pressure) gives total pressure over the surface of 67,824 tones
Total pressure loading on the hull is therefore 40,694.6 + 67,824 giving 108,518.6 tons
Given the differing units and assumption they are both in the same ballpark
Sadly, the catastrophic impact with Apophis asteroid isn't going to happen in 2068
NASA scientists mull sending a spacecraft on a 13-year mission to visit Neptune's 'bizarre' moon, Triton
Watch SpaceX's Starship SN4 prototype accidentally self-destruct in a rocket test burn
Where's the best place to add Mentos to Diet Coke for the most foam? How big are the individual bubbles? Has science gone too far?
Saturday 4th April 2020 15:43 GMT
Re: Been wondering...
From my grand-daughter
As far as she understands ---Her caveat, not mine!
Artificial sweeteners such as Aspartame, act in lowering the suface tension of the liquid they are dissolved in, so producing larger bubbles and more rapidly. So more foam is produced by diet versions of both coke and lemonade as they use artificial sweeteners rather than natural sugar.
She says the foam is mainly Co2 bubbles surrounded by a thin layer of the liquid, held around the bubble of gas by the liquids own surface tension.
She also points out that increases in temperature of the drink will also reduce the surface tension.
To quote her... " The warmer the pop the more the molecules in the liquid bop around, so reducing the attraction between the molecules"
I hope this helps
Friday 3rd April 2020 23:17 GMT
Re: Been wondering...
My 12 year old grand-daughter recently investigated this as her science project.
Evidently the type of sweetener used in Diet Coke is Aspartame.
So she dissolved increasing amounts of a standard aspartame based sweetener into bottles of lemonade.
Then dropped a standard sized Mento into the mixture and measured the height of the resulting foam plume.
Her conclusion: The greater the concentration of aspartame in the solution, the higher the resulting plume.
It maybe that the nucleation is a physics effect, but the actual constituents of the solution can either increase or decrease the speed of the reaction
NASA mulls restoring Saturn V to service as SLS delays and costs mount
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, health secretary Matt Hancock both test positive for COVID-19 coronavirus
Finally, a technology angle on the coronavirus outbreak: Semiconductor biz stocks slip amid China supply chain fears
Bad news: Earth is not going to be walloped by asteroid 2006 QV89. Good news: Boffins have lost sight of it, so all hope is not yet lost
Four hydrogen + eight caesium clocks = one almost-proven Einstein theory
Wednesday 6th June 2018 08:46 GMT
@ Adalat
Yes.... you forgot Friction.
In the first part of your thought experiment frictional forces do not apply, as gravity acts on all objects equally. In the absence of other factors..air resistance for example. So it matters not whether the steel ball and the wagon are connected. Both will move towards the mountain together.
But in the the second part of your experiment, the forces are different.. The forces on the wagon are directly applied by the engine, but in the case of the steel ball are only indirectly applied....because they are transmitted through the medium of the frictional forces between the point of contact between the wagon bed and the steel ball. Once these frictional forces are broken - then the engine cannot apply it's forces to the steel ball. It is not that the steel ball can differentiate between inertial and gravitational forces, it simply reacts to the constant gravitational force in the first instance, and in the second.....the lack of any forces acting upon it once the frictional bonds are broken
Biting the hand that feeds IT
